The more apt title for this article would be "Disliking the Republicans, Voting Against the Democrats Anyway". It is for the reasons the article states. I was sorely disappointed in the Republicans mutation into a bunch money wasting vote buyers as the years went on and topping it off with a give-away to Wall Street Bankers who were a key cause of the current economic disaster. But now that the Dems have control all I see is a bunch who also take a good idea, universal health coverage, and blow it by being in such a rush to pass any law that they don't tackle the root cause of the problem which is that 50% of what we spend on health care is wasted. Along with this, under the guise of stimulus, they pass $500B in spending that won't start to go into effect until next year and finish being spent until 6 or 7 years from. How was that supposed to be immediate stimulus? Sounds like just using a crisis to institutionalize new gov't programs.

My hope is that if we keep giving them one try and then boot them, they'll finally decide to just do what's right instead of trying to use my kids' and my grandkids' money to buy my vote.

@ccusa
You fail to understand that all the most important Founding Fathers and even the first seven Presidents were NOT Christian, but Deists and Enlightenment scholars. State Christianity was intentionally DISCARDED by these wisemen, since State Christianity caused pointlessly and destructively horrible violent bloodshed in Europe and even a tiny slice of early America (think Salem, MA). Jefferson, for one, was extremely critical of organized religion and organized religion's power-grubbing "leaders".

In a country with so many veto points, that doesnt really make any sense. The reasoning gets even more flawed when one consideres what a big tent party Democrats are, full off rightwingers that make sure nothing gets done even without Republicans. What on earth have Democrats done that has "gone to far". They have basically done nothing at all. Dont say the big stimulus bill the Republicans were all in on that, just like Democrats are/were in with all the slaughtering arround the world.

"Dunno, but divided government worked pretty well for Bill Clinton. If your goal is to see as little passed/done as possible, a divided government sounds good. "...
===
On crucial item of economic policies, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich's Republicans controlled house actually have overlapping agendas. and they are (for most part) san rational people who are willing to work together.

and Bill drove the debate pretty hard. and he is willing to call repubs bluff most of the time. (remember all the boohaha about shutting down the federal government?). say what you want on Bill, But Bill knows how to turns screw on these guys, he came from the rough and tumble politics of arkansas. Obama needs to be tougher, stop playing this games with repubs, and start to call spade a spade.

@gtgator
The president always has the initiative. Even in lame duck years W drove the agenda, be it the stimulus or prescription part D or the surge. and look at how tough it is to pass legislation even if you control both houses. just looking at how repubs operate. so saying dems control both houses starting 2006 so they are to blame is bit disengenuous as an argument.

also, I also said the problem with the stimulus was it wasn't strong enough, and O is too "bi-partisan". Bipartisanism is good...good as long as you have sane rational people who are willing to work with you. The current repub pols do not posses those crucial qualities.

@benboatley: "No one is going to vote for the Republicans" - I am. Straight line down. Not even going to look at the other side:)

@SilentChinese: "And I see the current turn against democrats as complete irrational behavior on part of the electorate. you just voted in these guys 2 years ago" - Technically, the democrats regained majorities in both houses of congress starting in 2006. 2008 saw them gain the White House, and additional senators and House Reps.

@SilentChinese: "and onto taxes, to the contrary conservative opinion, raising taxes in time of economic down turn does not slow down the recovery" - I am pretty sure if I raise taxes enough at any time, I can slow down the economy. I heartily agree that certainty is more needed, which President Obama could deliver more of. Certainty and stablity has not been a hallmark of his presidency so far, you had a healthcare battle raging for the better part of a year, on and off again stimulas, government take over's in the auto industry, cap and trade regulatory/taxes waiting in the senate to be passed, uncertainty of what they want to do with the Bush tax cuts that are about to expire, talk of legislation about removing union secret ballots, hearty scepiticism regarding free trade aggrements. In addition, the tax cuts he does pass are either so narrow to affect select people, or hardly do much of anything.

@Brian555: "Wishful thinking. Divided government is a cop-out." - Dunno, but divided government worked pretty well for Bill Clinton. If your goal is to see as little passed/done as possible, a divided government sounds good. You say what we need is more effective government. Sure, that would be nice (assuming you approve of what they are doing), but I am not exactly thrilled with the federal government's track record of late. I mean, that only passed a $1 trillion stimulus, which the best thing I am told, is that it stopped things from being worse. Maybe that's true, but I have a healthy skepticism, expecially when you are talking money that big.

For nearly two years, the republican minority has thwarted Democratic legislation. They had just enough votes and more than enough tricks to do so. Most of US have sat back and watched as our leaders fiddled and danced around some very important issues. Neither side was willing to compromise. It has been an excessively painful performance to watch. The economy is in bad shape, people are out of work and almost nothing positive has been done.

The party in power usually takes the blame for failure and it looks as if the Democratic Congressmen and Senators are going to pay a heavy price for it. There were many promises made during Barack Obama’s run for the White House; very few of them have been kept. The people are angry and they are going to direct that anger somewhere. It appears the GOP will take control of both houses.

Ah, but then the shoe will be on the other foot. The Republican Party will have to take the blame for further failure. Democrats will still hold a large number of seats and the president will have veto power. They can become the party of NO, if they wish. If that happens the big losers will be the American People, and they will be extremely angry in 2012. Tremendous pressure will be on the President and the Republicans to create some meaningful legislation. They will be forced to cooperate with each other; politics makes such strange bedfellows.

An opportunity to become a truly Great Statesman will fall, like manna from heaven, into President Obama’s lap. If he responds positively, sits down, and comprises with the New Congress, we could pull out of this recession. Barack Obama would then go down in history as one of our greatest presidents. Think about it… the Republican Party would give him, the object of their most vehement scorn, a great chance at re-election.

If he just says, “No” very little legislation will be passed. This President will take a place of shame next to Herbert Hoover and our Nation will be in deep trouble.

A normal democracy should be able to pass laws regardless of who is in power. In the United States Democracy, how questionable that the only party ever to be able to pass laws is the Republican party. No party will ever be able to rule domestically except the Republican Party. This is not about having a 'divided democracy'. What is happening in America is beyond, it is more like an oligarchy. This is really worrying, hardly ever will an advanced western country be rule by the extreme right. The fact is the Republicans are the extreme right; their claims are simply outrageous. Most of Western countries reach a balance of political parties to govern: THE UK HAS A CENTER-RIGHT GOVERNMENT (it even has a coalition of sorts and able to govern!), before that the UK had a center-left. I would consider the Democrats center-left, for really they are not extreme-leftits. Yet the Republicans are not still able to work with anyone except when they are in power. In fact the Republicans will never let any other party to ever hold power, they only allow the Democrats from time to time just to keep the pretense that it is a Democracy. But the Republicans' extreme right wing views are just as crazy as Ahmedijinad's crazy government in Iran. Just compare what happened a few weeks ago with Glenn Beck and their tea party. It so resembles those extreme, crazy, FANATIC Middle-Eastern countries; yes the Republicans are FANATICS, how dare they say such things about Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, God and American Politics. It is nothing but outrageous fanatism.

You, the writer of this article, are merely expressing the Republican ideology: "we do not let anyone govern just to keep balances"

Heimdall nailed it. President Obama hasn't been radical, nor has he overseen the 'socialization' of America - but many of the extremist would have you believe that. By the way, the bail out was fully introduced and passed by the previous administration and congress, Mr. President Obama has had the privilege (if you can call it that) of cleaning up after that one too.

As for the '10%', doublehelix is on the money: my god, grow a spine would you 10%ers and stand for something - this wishy-washy spineless sniveling festering pustules blows with the extremist winds mentality is what led us to this precarious point in our history. Give me a brainless right-wing nut job whose has seen Russia from their house over a spineless wonder, any day.

I for one will be voting to boot both my senator and congressman out again, since they are both so-called republicans, and have aptly demonstrated once again, that they are a pair of prophylaxis on the penis of progress.

The hijacked republican party, only has flashier one-liners and no real substance. But they learned long ago..... you can fool most of the people, most of the time.

Just like in 2004, the voters will go to the polls and they either vote to stay the course and see this economic downturn through, or they can vote for radicals who will ensure we re-visit the policies that led us into this fine mess. Either way they will get what they deserve.

What's needed is to move beyond the sterile debate between 'government is the answer' and 'government is the problem'. The Republicans have nothing to offer in this regard. At least the Democrats represent all of America- with a left, center, and right, and a respect for good government.

The Republicans have proven that when in power they promote mediocre people and govern irresponsibly. They've also chosen to stand aside from the democratic process for the last 2 years and be disruptive not constructive. Why should that behavior be rewarded? Surely one of the tests of any society is whether it rewards those who behave responsibly or those who don't?

Economist- how can a party that votes against stimulus in the midst of one of the worst recessions ever, and that votes AGAINST financial reform after all of the weaknesses that the financial sector has demonstrated- how can you say that anyone in that party deserves to keep their job?

Obama's mistake, IMHO, is that he is not doing enough. He should have listen to folks like Robert Reich little bit more. The stimulus wasn't big or strong enough. he was too "bi-partisan", too much compromise so that he fails to kick start the economy. What democrats need is a unified strong response to these republican non-sense and ignore the detractors. a strong and upbeat American economy as a result of sweeping fiscal stimulus will make the detractor irrelevent.

to the contrary conservative opinion, raising taxes in time of economic down turn does not slow down the recovery. what people need in time of down turn is certainty. they want to know tomorrow they will still have a job or their retirement fund is still there. that tomorrow is better than today.

what they need is confidence.

what props up confidence?
a strong, unified and effective fiscal stimulus props up confidence. fiscal responsibility both revenue increases props up confidence.
a long term economic plan where meaningful stimuli spurts long term growth props up confidence.

what drains confidence?
half-a**ed stimulus that does not generate enough demand and fails to kick start the economy drains confidence. non-broadbased high income only taxes cutting so to shift your tax base onto your poor at the time of great uncertainty and your fiscal deficit sky rockets as a result drains confidence. political impasse and infighting drains confidence.

very fiscally responsible. except when the economy turns south the budgets usually dives south too, just when one expect government to come in and prop up demands.
so what happens is federal government is forced to fill state's budget holes. this is actually the most effective part of the "stimulus" which actually help to underpin the social infrastructure (teachers schools firefighters cops roads) so it doesn't fall apart.

In reality, ANY government's hands are tied and can only bring about meaningful change incrementally.

if one look at any recent budget pie chart, if one take out the "mandatory" spending. i.e. Medicare/Social Spending, War, and interest payments, etc... it leaves about only 10% may be 15% discretionary spending.
basically, ANY adminstration, wether its Barrack Hussein Obama or John Dickens O'lear, only have about 10-15% of federal budget to play with, any many of that is saddled with political necessisities like education and roads.

to put this in persepective medicare alone in 2009 budget is 19% of total expenditure. and this part alone will sink the federal budget as cost of health care sky rockets in 10 years. (I haven't even started on Social Security yet)

so for all the deficit hawks out there, if one does not wish to cut defense or default on interest payments, then I don't see how one can oppose any serious, meaningful, health care reform.

The problem with the argument that "divided government brings fiscal and military restraint" is that... well, divided government also means no one can really be held responsible for any mess that they causes. the pols can always say, it was the other guy.

And I see the current turn against democrats as complete irrational behavior on part of the electorate. you just voted in these guys 2 years ago. 2 budget cycles is hardly enough time to dig out such a deep hole. and you will vent your anger on them by bringing in the guys who dug these holes? because you can?